As an aside in this thread, the one problem we are having with both Patrick Henry and with Skeptic is they both assume that their on personal god exists as a given without ever giving us any evidence that it is true. I started a thread for Patrick Henry to present his case for the existence of his god, yet after 6 pages we are no further forward.

I'm sorry, Skeptic, but even if we could accept your Minimum Facts Approach to the Resurrection, we would still be stuck with the problem that one has to have a powerful god to do the raising from the dead and we still have not been shown that this is so. This is going to continue to be the case until you can show otherwise, Skeptic.

So, Skeptic, continue on this thread to show how your argument works out in terms of a resurrection as against people who are bereaved seeing images (a scientifically proven fact) but also start a new thread with your evidence for the existence of god. With this two-pronged approach you ought to be able to convince us to believe like you do.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Just how does God do this? Is it just "magic"? Or is there some biological process that God should be telling us about?

Everything that God does is a biological process. God created the processes that form stars, planets, life, galaxies, etc etc etc.

If God healed an amputee, you would see the process happening. This is why people think God is not involved in any process. They never stop to think that maybe, just maybe, God created all processes and without God, the processes would fall apart.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Everything that God does is a biological process. God created the processes that form stars, planets, life, galaxies, etc etc etc.

Baseless assertion.

Quote

If God healed an amputee, you would see the process happening. This is why people think God is not involved in any process. They never stop to think that maybe, just maybe, God created all processes and without God, the processes would fall apart.

We don't consider god because there is no evidence for your claim. It's as simple as that. Is that really so hard to grasp?

What does "processes would fall apart" without god even mean? How would this work? Do you even have anything to back this claim up? I'm guessing probably not.

Well, this has been explained already. God doesn't heal amputees because God is all about the spirit, not the physical body. The physical body can be destroyed, but the soul can't.

Besides, the question rests on the unsupported assumption that God MUST fix every single problem that we have. Since this was never promised by God anywhere in the Bible, the point is moot.

This is little more than "explaining why god does nothing".

If god had no tangible effects on this world, if god does nothing that can be measured or detected, then it would make sense for his followers to try and tell us to expect nothing from him (though this means that they also expect nothing from him).

However, this means that there is nothing to differ god from non-existence. I expect non-existence things to do nothing. Apparently, the same is true for god. I expect there to be no evidence for the existence of non-existence things. Apparently, the same is true for god. I expect non-existence things to have no discernible effects on my life. Apparently, the same is true for god. Thus far, I cannot see the difference between god and a non-existence thing.

I don't know, guys! Think about it - Skeptic seems to think that his god is in all the physical processes in the universe. Let's go with that for a moment. There is a Christian doctrine that god existence ensures that the universe stays in existence - yep, god 'sustains' the universe. Skeptic also says that god works through the natural processes so that, for example, he caused a limb to regrow, we would be able to observe the limb growing. I presume this means that Skeptic does not support that idea that what you and I might call a miracle doesn't happen - i.e. man goes to bed with one leg and wakes up with two legs a few hours later.

The problem here is that Skeptic has defined his god in such a way tht god can only work through physical processes so that dead people, for who brain cells have died, could physically not be able to be raised from the dead. This has a tiny problem for Christian doctrine but let's allow Skeptic to spot it. However, we can now, more or less, define god from what Skeptic said.

God is the energy in the universe

Now we know from Einstein that energy and matter are equivalent so, roughly speaking, Skeptic has shown us his god - the sum total of all the energy and mass in the universe. OK, to test those of you who have watched Lawrence Krauss's film 'A Universe from nothing' what is the sum totla of all the mass and energy in the universe?

It is certainly not baseless. Atheists can tell you that things evolve, but they can't explain why things even evolve in the first place, or why life tries to survive in the first place. They can explain how an atom works but can't explain why an atom works.

You see my point?

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

You've claimed that god "creates processes", and that this lead to the formation of stars, planets and whatsnot. You've provided no evidence of this, and gave no reasons why we should give this claim credence. A claim does not become accepted simply because you want it to be.

Quote

Atheists can tell you that things evolve, but they can't explain why things even evolve in the first place, or why life tries to survive in the first place. They can explain how an atom works but can't explain why an atom works.

Atheists do not have to explain things, nor do they need to know these things. Atheists are not required to know the theory of evolution, or to be able to answer your gap-god questions. Sounds like your beef is with scientists, and whenever they're able to answer your questions or not. "Atheist" and "scientist" are not one and the same thing.

Not to mention, you could answer those questions yourself if you've ever bothered to do research on those subjects. Ever tried it?

Quote

You see my point?

The point you're trying to make is a very poor one. I'd say it falls under the category of "not even wrong".

There is more evidence for Jesus Christ's existence than Julius Caesar and Socrates combined.

Cuts both ways. If people were capable of faking Julius Caesar, then they could fake Jesus Christ sooner than having a beer at the pub.

Most Biblical scholars place Saul's conversion to Christianity in 33 A.D. Pontius Pilate was governor from 27-37 A.D. Christianity did not come about many decades later. It came about in 33 A.D.

Skeptic

1. The death of Jesus is usually placed at 33CE by reason of the dating of Pesach though it is not clear which day was Pesach - the day he died of the day after. This is because Pesach takes place when there is a full moon at the right time.

2. The dating of Roman officials, like Pilate is easy as the Romans have records of them all. (You might, as a sideline, like to compare the birth date of Jesus with the Roman officials the gospels mention.) The Roman stuff can be dated from all sorts of records but what do we have to date Paul? All we have is an account by a writer we know as Luke but we don't know when or where it was written and the letters which claim to be from Paul. We have no record anywhere outwith the NT for anything of this - not Paul birth date or the date he died - there is no record of the trials he is supposedly was tried at. There is literally nothing to go on. Now, its fine for anyone to come up with a date from something but thin of this - Paul's theology is far more developed than the gospels - especially his Christology - yet people buy in to the idea that Paul taught first and then the gospels, which apparently didn't know anything of Paul's teachings become more primitive. It's not that likely.

3. If you want to date Christianity, come up with the first date it is recorded anywhere in an unambiguous way and let us know what that date is and where you found it.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Everything that God does is a biological process. God created the processes that form stars, planets, life, galaxies, etc etc etc.

If God healed an amputee, you would see the process happening. This is why people think God is not involved in any process. They never stop to think that maybe, just maybe, God created all processes and without God, the processes would fall apart.

I can go with that. It would be a reasonable course to take.

But the big problem, then, is that every piece of evidence we have points to people who properly die, and are dead for 3 days, stay dead. THAT is the "biological process" of death.

So - by Skeptic's own logic - Christ was NOT brought back to life, because that's not the biological process created by hs god.

You know something? I have no problem believing that someone who loved him[1] believed that they saw him after death.

After my mom died, as I was packing her things and disassembling her home, I kept seeing her - out of the corner of my eye. Not quite really seeing her. But feeling her presence in her home. My brain had not adjusted to the fact that someone I loved was dead. I felt her presence. Over and over again, I was convinced that she was in the next room.

The same thing happened after my grandma's death.

Recently, a friend lost her young son. I keep "seeing" him on the street - a half a block away - with my middle aged eyes. As I get close, of course, it is not him. It is just some random young person with dark skin and hair. But it keeps happening.

Grief does strange things to the brain. Those who study grief even call the first stage "denial." We don't yet really believe that the person we love is dead.

If Jesus was a real man who lived on planet earth, and if the accounts written generations after his death are to be believed, it is entirely possible that those who loved him really, truly believe they saw him after death. And then told the story.

Edited to add: And the tween-aged cousin of the young man who just died reported that a week or so after his sudden death, she got up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom. She saw the young man's reflection in the bathroom mirror. He spoke to her and said that he had a message for his mother. He told his cousin that he loves his mother, and that he wants her to stop crying and go on with her life. The girl told her aunt this story, and the aunt finds a small comfort in it. This goes on ALL THE TIME. All over the world. In probably every culture and religion. Especially when a death is sudden and unexpected.

Even if only a couple of the disciples thought they saw Jesus - saw Mary and Peter - one can easily see how the numbers and location would increase to be the stories we have in the gospels. Of course, the road to Emmaus story didn't have Jesus in it at all - it was juts the people talking thought he was there and understood when they broke bread.

How is this less believable that a 3 day dead person actually, and bodily rose from the dead?

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

It is certainly not baseless. Atheists can tell you that things evolve, but they can't explain why things even evolve in the first place, or why life tries to survive in the first place. They can explain how an atom works but can't explain why an atom works.

You see my point?

Your point appears to be to insert implicit sentient, willful intent and purpose in those questions.

Or perhaps you can better explain the difference between the questions "how does an atom work" and "why does an atom work".

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Even if only a couple of the disciples thought they saw Jesus - saw Mary and Peter - one can easily see how the numbers and location would increase to be the stories we have in the gospels.

Where it got to the point where they brazenly added a whole gospel (John), that had a completely different thrust, theology, content; yet Christians still wanted to believe it. That's democracy for you.

Logged

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

It is certainly not baseless. Atheists can tell you that things evolve, but they can't explain why things even evolve in the first place, or why life tries to survive in the first place. They can explain how an atom works but can't explain why an atom works.

You see my point?

I have always had a degree of sympathy for this kind of understanding of God. A basis for all existence - put more pretentiously - an ontological foundation.

However there are two serious problems with this line of thought.

First is that it serves no explanatory function:

For example if you asked me: Why is the charge of an electron 1.6022x10-19 Coulombs? I could not give you a coherent answer.

However if I asked you then same question you would say: Because God set that value. However, I will respond Why did God set that value? - at which point you have nothing further to add.

Is there a substantive difference? The answer is no. Neither of us have given an explanation of why the charge of an electron is what it is; you have simply added an extra assertion, but left the essential problem untouched. (Contrast this with the actual knowledge of the value of the charge itself - a what question rather than a why one).

Secondly even if we accept the possibility of an ontological foundation deity it is really the God of Ancient Greek Philosophy, an amoral, disinterested, non-anthropic God. It is certainly not the God of religion.

Most Biblical scholars place Saul's conversion to Christianity in 33 A.D. Pontius Pilate was governor from 27-37 A.D. Christianity did not come about many decades later. It came about in 33 A.D.

If you can fake Julius Caesar, you can fake Pontius and Paul.

What "most" Biblical scholars believe could be similar to what most evolutionists believe.

Sorry; I'm aware that this discussion has been going on for a bit and I shouldn't barge in unannounced ... but, seriously WTF!?! Who is faking Caesar, Pontius Pilate and St Paul? I fear we've moved into proper conspiracy nut territory now...

Logged

"Goodness is about what you do. Not who you pray to." - Terry Pratchett

Are you forgetting that God, being all-powerful, would have NO PROBLEM raising someone form the dead?!?!?

Or healing an amputee, Skeptic. Perhaps you should take another look at the premise of this website.

Well, this has been explained already. God doesn't heal amputees because God is all about the spirit, not the physical body. The physical body can be destroyed, but the soul can't.

Besides, the question rests on the unsupported assumption that God MUST fix every single problem that we have. Since this was never promised by God anywhere in the Bible, the point is moot.

Which boils down to your postulation being indistinguishable from something completely made up. Not very skeptical of you.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

The Jews rejected their own Messiah that was sent to save them, so why would they care if Jesus rose? They rejected him anyway.

Skep, can you not see how *utterly ridiculous* this statement is on its face?? How incredible (in the strict sense, that is "not credible") that anyone witnessing such an event would reject the raised being as a god???

Logged

...religion is simply tribalism with a side order of philosophical wankery, and occasionally a baseball bat to smash...anyone who doesn't show...deference to the tribe's chosen totem.

~Astreja

To not believe in god is to know that it falls to us to make the world a better place.

The Roman stuff can be dated from all sorts of records but what do we have to date Paul? All we have is an account by a writer we know as Luke but we don't know when or where it was written and the letters which claim to be from Paul. We have no record anywhere outwith the NT for anything of this - not Paul birth date or the date he died - there is no record of the trials he is supposedly was tried at. There is literally nothing to go on. Now, its fine for anyone to come up with a date from something but thin of this

I'd have to delve into the scholarship a bit more, but as I understand it, the "authentic" epistles of Paul are dated prior to 66 C.E. because they make no mention of the Jewish War or the destruction of the Temple, which had an enormous impact on First Century Judaism. The pseudoepigraphical Pauline epistles are viewed as such because they differ theologically from the "authentic" Pauline epistles, or because they do things like assume the existence of a developed Church hierarchy with "bishops" and "deacons" and so on (the "Pastoral" epistles), which would not have existed in Paul's time.

Paul's theology is far more developed than the gospels - especially his Christology - yet people buy in to the idea that Paul taught first and then the gospels, which apparently didn't know anything of Paul's teachings become more primitive. It's not that likely.

I'm not so sure. This assumes that "primitive" theology is necessarily older than "developed" theology. How do we know that early Christianity did not suffer from a kind of "Idiocracy" in which the theology was dumbed-down to gain wider appeal? We can observe that such theological regression happens by comparing the writings of, say, Thomas Aquinas with sermons of the average televangelist.

Like Paul's epistles, the Book of Hebrews also contains a developed Christology, where Jesus is a celestial redeemer who offers his blood in a Heavenly Temple of which the Jerusalem Temple is merely a copy, in the sense of Platonic metaphysics. Its extensive contrast between Jesus as a celestial High Priest and the human High Priest in Jerusalem, with argumentation for why the former is superior, is presented as if the Temple is still in operation.

The Gospels, on the other hand, include "prophecies" placed in the mouth of Jesus, proclaiming that the Temple and the city of Jerusalem would be destroyed by the Romans. On the premise that it is more likely that the texts would be written after the events described, than that a man could foretell the future, the Gospels are dated after 70 C.E., with Mark as the first and the others appearing later.

If the "mythicist"[1] theory of Christian origins is true, then it would not be a surprise to see the sophisticated, mystical and philosophical theology come first, having its origins with educated, cosmopolitan Jewish mystic-philosophers aiming to reconcile Judaism with the prevailing currents of Mystery School teaching. This would have been followed by a trend toward "drawing down" Jesus into an earthly life for various reasons (e.g. to "explain" the events of the Jewish War as punishment on the Jews for crucifying Jesus, to establish a basis for a doctrine of "Apostolic Succession" as justification for the emerging proto-Catholic clerical hierarchy, to appeal to the common people, etc.).

It is arguable that the Gospels (at least Mark and Matthew) were not written as history, but as parables about Jesus. Evidences for this can be found in the way that Gospel writers rearrange, insert, or omit "events" in their stories of Jesus, and otherwise demonstrate that literary concerns (storytelling) trump any supposed effort at "accuracy." Examples are plentiful, such as the writer of a later Gospel creating a different narrative context for a "saying of Jesus" than the one employed by a Gospel he was using as a source. The Gospel of Thomas provides evidence that "sayings of Jesus" were in circulation apart from any narrative context in a "life of Jesus." If so, these "sayings" might have been initially received and circulated as "channeled" revelations from a wholly celestial Jesus.

I'm not sure which model (historicist or "mythicist") is accurate, as there are a lot of heavy-duty scholarly writings on both sides, and the data we have is pretty sketchy. The "mythicist" model seems more parsimonious and makes more sense to me, but the majority of experts still lean toward historicism. As I understand it though, that same scholarly consensus also holds to the authentic letters of Paul pre-dating the Gospels.

I don't like this term, as it misrepresents what the first Christians were doing according to the theory. They were not creating "myths" in the modern sense of the term, but "discovering" the existence and acts of a celestial Jesus by various mystical means (e.g. visions, "decoding" the ancient scriptures, etc.).

Logged

"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

The Jews rejected their own Messiah that was sent to save them, so why would they care if Jesus rose? They rejected him anyway.

Skep, can you not see how *utterly ridiculous* this statement is on its face?? How incredible (in the strict sense, that is "not credible") that anyone witnessing such an event would reject the raised being as a god???

Or: Why would a Jewish God send a messiah to save everyone non-Jewish?

Logged

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

The Jews rejected their own Messiah that was sent to save them, so why would they care if Jesus rose? They rejected him anyway.

Skep, can you not see how *utterly ridiculous* this statement is on its face?? How incredible (in the strict sense, that is "not credible") that anyone witnessing such an event would reject the raised being as a god???

The people who, arguably, knew him best, were the members of the Jewish community. They had all the prophecies in front of them and were waiting for their Messiah. And when Jesus showed up, they did not think he was god. He supposedly did all these miracle and rose from the dead, but they still did not believe. Why do you think that was? Why would they reject him if he really was their Messiah? Makes no sense.

Besides that gives the lie to all the claims that "in the last days god will appear/Jesus will return and all will know he is lord" or some such. If it is so self-evident that he is the lord, why did so many people not believe the last time?

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Just how does God do this? Is it just "magic"? Or is there some biological process that God should be telling us about?

Everything that God does is a biological process. God created the processes that form stars, planets, life, galaxies, etc etc etc.

If God healed an amputee, you would see the process happening. This is why people think God is not involved in any process. They never stop to think that maybe, just maybe, God created all processes and without God, the processes would fall apart.

so why did God create asteroids.... Not in our lifetime but soon on a cosmic scale one of those space rocks will wipe out what followers your god has left( if any ),it's ok though because religion or human activity will probably kill humanity before that happens.

Face it you belong to a dying religion,you are here to try and justify your position,you fail miserably.

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

The Jews rejected their own Messiah that was sent to save them, so why would they care if Jesus rose? They rejected him anyway.

Skep, can you not see how *utterly ridiculous* this statement is on its face?? How incredible (in the strict sense, that is "not credible") that anyone witnessing such an event would reject the raised being as a god???

That just shows the level of man's greed and man's humongous ego.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

so why did God create asteroids.... Not in our lifetime but soon on a cosmic scale one of those space rocks will wipe out what followers your god has left( if any ),it's ok though because religion or human activity will probably kill humanity before that happens.

Face it you belong to a dying religion,you are here to try and justify your position,you fail miserably.

The religion is certainly not dying. This is what the Romans said in the 1st century. This is what they said in the Middle Ages. This is what they said in the 1700's. it's nothing but hot air.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)